User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • October 31, 2014 at 6:17pm

    “John 16:13″ But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth”
    These are the ones filled with the gift of the Spirit, Here is evidence for the doctrine on infallibility.”

    It’s possible to interpret the passage that way, but it is ambiguous as to whether it guarantees infallibility, and the rest of Scripture clarifies that it does not. Guiding into truth does not have to be instant; instead the Bible teaches that in this life it is gradual, and is only total in heaven. That is why Christians can still unfortunately sin in this life (there’s much more to it but I only have time for a short answer here). And we have Scriptural evidence that Peter was certainly not already totally there after Acts 2, such as Paul’s rebuke.

    Most of the rest of your posts seem to be addressing a bizarre strawman where you’re apparently claiming I said not to teach? I said no such thing. Isn’t that actually what I myself am doing, in my own silly informal internet-age way? :P

    You also contradicted yourself at several points by trying to verify your argument with Scripture, yet you are arguing against that very practice. You say we only know what’s Scripture based on what the Catholic church decrees, yet you try to show that the Catholic church is reliable based on Scripture. See the circular reasoning?

    We have to have sound support for the Bible (and we DO! more of it than I can keep track of!) to “break the circle.” :)

  • October 31, 2014 at 6:14pm

    “First you need to understand the concept of what infallible actually means.”

    Yeah yeah, that’s old and I even mentioned it in at least one other post here. There’s limited space in these posts, so it’s valid to summarize and expect readers to know what it means on their own time.

    “How do we know the Bible has no errors?”

    I’ve said tons on this in past posts. None of it includes blind trust in humans just assuring us it lacks them.

    “How do we know which books are suppose to be in the Bible? Because the church tell us so.”

    No, that’s circular reasoning. A Muslim can “know” that the Quran is the real scripture by the same method, just a different group. Any other cult can tell us their book is the real one based on their own assurances. Only the Bible has unfakeable prophecies, scientific predictions, historical verifications, etc. etc. backing it up as the real word of God.

    “Since the Bible does not have a list to tell us which books belong in the Bible we need to rely on a source outside of the Bible.”

    Not entirely, but I agree outside data is vital to the question. But the issue here is that showing that the other sound support is SOMEWHERE beyond just the Bible (though the Bible itself is also self-proving in some ways, esp. the prophecies) does not show that the Pope, etc. is the SPECIFIC place, and the verified discipline of logic warns us against blindly trusting authority alone.

  • October 31, 2014 at 6:14pm

    “During his debate with Nye he held up a chart that proved everything he believes wrong, and yet acted like it confirmed everything he thought.”

    Could you please be more specific? Which chart do you have in mind, and what sound support do you have for the claim that it proves what he believes wrong?

    Also, I don’t recall him physically holding up any charts, but I’ll assume you mean he showed a slide.

    “So, how do we get around this problem of our own ignorance?”

    See my other posts here. :) Short answer: Honest, objective research and reliance on sound logic, not fallacies like appeal to authority.

    “Does the Bible give us a clue? Indeed it does: Acts 8:31. Here the Ethiopian eunuch is reading Scripture and Philip comes up and asks him if he understands what he is reading. What does the eunuch say, “Of course I understand it. I don’t need any help from anyone to understand the Bible?” No, he doesn’t say that!”


    “He says, “How can I [understand the Scriptures] unless someone guides me.””

    Yet it is possible for different people to guide him in different ways, only one of them right. We have to have a reliable way to test between them, and that is sound logic. :) See other posts for more. It is not “trust what this guy says without verification.”

    “Which is why God gave us the Church”

    “”Peter wasn’t infallible either.” That’s just your fallible opinion and NOT scripture.

    You have this exactly backwards…

  • [-2] October 31, 2014 at 3:31pm

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:30pm

    ‘Kay, Blink, if it’s so easy, explain it.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:28pm

    Irish, Genesis uses three different meanings for “yohm” (day), which English also has. The one you mentioned (daylight) is in there (and BTW doesn’t help Old Earthers since it says there were six daylight periods in the creation week), the one with the number and evening and morning (so both daylight and night) is there, which is the earth-spin “day” in question, and at the end of the first section, “in that day” type uses meaning just a period of time, summing up the whole week. The context clearly defines each of them.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:25pm

    No, it would be the same as saying that rusting is how cars are made.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:25pm

    No, because of the reason I mentioned, and as biblical Christians we are commanded to use sound reasoning, not to use fallacious reasoning even to prop up a true conclusion. :)

    Technically using the terms isn’t “destroyed”, it’s just to vague to get across the real problem. (The changes we observe ARE “micro”, but that’s not really the point.)

    Notice you didn’t actually answer the problem…

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 11:35am


    Re-reading alan’s post, it seems the “atheists aren’t required” statement was in reaction to “forced to believe”, but it seems like you didn’t read the whole statement (the end):

    “abiogenesis, the notion of the “primordial soup”, is barely even a hypothesis, that atheists are forced to believe in to have any resemblance of intellectual honesty.”

    What you said is just that to be an atheist you need not accept abiogenesis, but alan wasn’t saying that; he was saying to be an intellectually honest atheist you have to. I’m curious if you would actually dispute that?

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 11:33am

    “I agree with you, macro evolution is probably impossible. What’s even worse, is abiogenesis”

    So he called abiogenesis WORSE than macro-evolution; not the same thing.

    However, abiogenesis IS a part of theistic and atheistic evolution as a whole (meaning the development of everything, now just the adaptation of existing life; abiogenesis is called chemical evolution for instance, and there’s stellar evolution and so forth, but that’s obviously not what alan was talking about). For an atheist to even quibble about it makes little sense, because you DO have to account for it for biological evolution to even be plausible as an alternative to theism.

    But this obviously doesn’t apply to some compromisers who will say God created miraculously one or some lifeform(s) which then underwent biological evolution.

    “Evolution involves what happens to life, not how life forms.”

    Actually this is not quite accurate, since current life’s forming involves “evolution” in that sense, under Darwinism etc. Most secularistic attempts at explaining abiogenesis that I’ve heard also use arguments similar to darwinism; they still need a gradual, step-by-step process fueled by random reactions and natural selection to sift out failed forms, even if it’s prior to a stage we today would call “life.”

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 11:32am

    “Macroevolution is nothing more than an accumulation of many instances of microevolution”

    Considering the observed changes (“evolution” that we see) are downward, this only leads to macro-decay, not “molecules to man” upward evolution (“evolution” in the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian senses).

    “Atheists do not believe in god. They are not required to understand, accept, or even know about any scientific concept.”

    Not sure what your point is here, but it could be interpreted as a telling admission that atheism has no objective foundation for science (thus no logical reason under atheism to do science), which is a point creationists have been making for a while. :) By contrast, Christians ARE taught to gain in understanding, and science being based on biblical teaching certainly implies a mandate to know scientific concepts. We could analyze whether this is “required” but I would just answer, “Required for what?” — they’re not required for salvation (unless for an individual it was an issue they needed to come to faith, like me), but required to get rewarded for that particular work. :)

    “Abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution”

    I know you’re just saying this because atheists are trained to work like a bad google search; if you see the word “abiogenesis” you just parrot what you memorized to say, but it’s worth pointing out that alan777 not only didn’t say they were the same thing, he said they weren’t:[...]

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:39am

    Your quotes appear to be irrelevant, or circular reasoning at best (probably also confusing ancient “catholic” with modern Catholicism; equivocation fallacy). The Origen quote especially backs up what I’m saying, since the Pope’s source is claimed to be an “inner room” type revelation without any verficiation. You’re shooting your own argument in the foot and apparently don’t even realize it!

    Notice again that you have attempted to use logic to convince me to abandon logic lol.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:39am

    “and sometimes-faulty logic”

    Sound logic isn’t faulty; that’s the whole point.

    “but authority, tradition (Oral teaching) and scripture work together without conflict, which is the Catholic position.”

    Where these things are trusted, they are trusted BECAUSE of sound support, not in spite of it, Lest. (Or they’re supposed to be according to the Bible.) Otherwise, if mere humans announcing something and claiming to be authoritative, and developing traditions, and writing things down was guaranteed, you run into the problem that multiple people can do this and can teach contradictory things. There has to be a way to test their claims.

    “I don’t know why you think the Bible came from nonCatholic sources.”

    I don’t recall saying that, but even if we grant the original label “Catholic” to the authors of the Bible for sake of argument (I don’t as it’s too easy to confuse with modern corrupted Catholicism), that doesn’t prove Popes to be infallible. It especially doesn’t prove that this Pope has authority to change how the world came to be! To me it’s a non-issue what label you apply to the authors of the Bible; that’s just semantics, so I would mostly call this a strawman.

    “The Luther one did, as he made many changes.”

    Biblical Christians do not hold to “the Luther one” but the original autographs as best as we can scientifically determine what they said by manuscript comparisons, analysis, etc. :)

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:38am

    Alright, had more time than I thought… This is rushed, though, so pardon if it’s unclear anywhere…

    “The problem is, with the Word of God, there are deep truths to be understood and frankly not every person has sound logic, good reasoning, intelligence.”

    That is certainly a problem, but not for the argument that sound logic is how we find truth. It’s a problem caused by sin, and this doesn’t help your argument at all, as this same problem can cause popes to err. :)

    “The Lord would have left many at risk of salvation without building His Church”

    A true statement — where we disagree is that you define “his church” as “catholic church” rather than the way the Bible did; the entire body of believers.

    “For those years there was no canon of Scriptures”

    I’ve covered this in other posts on this page. Suffice to say the whole Scripture was recognized as canon when it was written, not hundreds of years later; that’s a myth invented by moderns.

    “Good you cited Bereans. After affirming Paul’s authority searching the OT, they listened to his ORAL teaching on the Good News.”

    Because he passed the test, AND had miraculous demonstrations of credibility. Popes do neither.

    “Not sola scriptura”

    Sola Scriptura refers to moderns who don’t have the luxury of hearing Paul’s spoken words in person, Lest. But they did indeed take his writings as Scripture, and what he spoke aloud was put into his writings, at least the most important.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:08am

    “I still don’t see where Scripture tells us to use only logic to helps us determine meaning. It tells us to look to authorities, over and over.”

    It is sound logic that tells us to do this FOR LANGUAGE. But the problem is, you’re using an illogical authority. The logical authority is experts in the ancient languages, speakers of the modern version of it, scholars who study it, and ancient records that demonstrate the proper interpretation (the same principles that all translators use to understand a foreign language, and that you are using now to understand and expect me to understand English). Some modern guy telling you he got a secret tip from God without verification is not a logical authority for language.

    And this does not make authority a logical determiner for any and all issues. It works for language because languages are conventions agreed to by people, so DO fall within the purview of human decision. But the decision was made by the ancients who spoke the languages the Bible was written in, so we have to use the scientific method to determine it; it wasn’t made by a Pope today.

    Out of time for now, maybe more later. :)

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:03am

    Bald assertion. Show me sound support for those claims. :)

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:02am

    False… trichotomy? :P There’s also the possibility that evolution (in that sense) is wrong and we know why your claimed evidence isn’t legitimate. ;) (Besides, most of the past evidence has been demoted even by evolutionists, or shown fraudulent in some cases.) What you said really seems to amount to an admission that you’re not even going to allow for this possibility in your mind, so how could we trust your judgment to honestly test it?

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 9:00am

    Again, elephant hurling. Show me one example of where anything I’ve said in any conversation (at least that I haven’t or won’t retract :P) lacks sound logic. I make sure I don’t speak until I do have sound support, eu.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 8:59am

    Name one that can be attributed to evolutionism. But since science is founded based on biblical principles, you could actually make a case that in a sense, all inventions owe a debt to creationism. It was Christian creationists who founded modern science, and this is not a coincidence, since other societies with other views failed to come up with as useful a system for improving life. If you can ignore the Bible on what God said about how he created, why not ignore it on his constant upholding of the laws of nature consistently so that science is possible, for example?

    But that aside, this is mostly a strawman, as creationism isn’t true by virtue of having practical benefits (though it certainly does have some), it’s true because it has sound support. :)

    I’d also suggest that feeling free to embrace error just because you haven’t yet seen practical benefit to the truth is dangerous, because if you don’t try, you never know what you’re missing, and if you apply the same thinking (if you can’t be trusted with little things) to other areas, you might cut off even larger practical benefits. Prior to modern medicine for example that logic could have been used to scoff away attempts to develop it, since the benefits hadn’t yet been seen at the time.

    As for “not testable”, the Bible makes tons of testable claims, like a young Earth, and has been scientifically verified:

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 8:48am

    That’s a true statement — it takes less work to type that shorter statement. :P Doesn’t make the latter accurate to describe the former. ;) (I would argue the latter describes your own view better. You yourself have admitted to an avoidance of researching opposition.)

    IMO “I know in my heart” is a way of saying (though admittedly most probably don’t consciously realize this) that they’re listening to the intuition when it has guaranteed them their conclusions are sound, since the subconscious is actually a MORE powerful analyzer (since it basically uses parallel processing) than the merely linear conscious. :) However, it’s always best to study the “whys” for the conscious mind too to strengthen faith, as it’s always possible we’ve misinterpreted the intuition.

    “I know in my heart” can also mean, though, that a person is fully convinced consciously and it has “sunk in” to strong faith. :)

123 To page: Go